Podcast: Play in new window | Download
One of the things that I have learned (the hard way) is that looking sensible on TV is harder than it looks.
That’s why I was happy when Nightline decided to interview my co-author Betsey Stevenson rather than me for a segment that ran last week summarizing our research on the relationship between income and happiness.
Freakonomics readers have already read plenty about that research (here), but I thought you might want to see the full Nightline segment, available here.
And if you are still interested in more, here’s a recent interview on BBC radio. If you read Italian, try this; or for the Swedes, see more here (or here).
(An aside: You will note that I referred to Betsey as my co-author, which she is, but that is only a partial description, as she is also my Wharton colleague, and also my longtime significant other. What is the right word for this? “Colleague plus?” I imagine that finding the right language for this is an increasingly common conundrum. Any suggestions?)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
You and Betsey are ‘umcolleagues’. As in “May I introduce my umm… colleague.”
colleague with benefits
CWB?
Colleagues With Benefits?
Better Half
Uxorial collaborator? Smushing them together to “uxorillaborator” is a bit of a mouthful.
Or considering forming a portmanteau from “life/work partner”:
1. Lork partner (pronounced like “lerk”) or more succinctly, Lorkner (likewise pronounced “lerkner”).
2. Worfe partner (sounds a bit like Wharton and Wolfers, which may be a plus), or shortened further to Worfner.
“partner”
boss
Hehe, I think boss is probably the most accurate/truthful. But I would vote for “Partner”. I think that it is appropriately vague and already comes with built-in associations that seem to accurately represent your 2 primary associations: “Business Partner” and “Life Partner.” Making up completely new words is fun, but ultimately silly and not useful, imho.